Ex Parte Sim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2016

12379055 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/379,055 02/11/2009
89980 7590 09/12/2016
NSIPLAW
P.O. Box 65745
Washington, DC 20035
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jae Young Sim
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
012052.1148 9789
EXAMINER
SOSANYA, OBAFEMI OLUDAYO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/12/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
pto@nsiplaw.com
pto.nsip@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAE YOUNG SIM, DO KYOON KIM,
KEE CHANG LEE, GAEL GUENNEBAUD,
MARIO BOTSCH, MARKUS GROSS, and
ROBERT CARNECKY 1
Appeal2015-004476
Application 12/379,055
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--11, 13-15, and 17-25, which are all of the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to "3D image processing" from "a color image
that is obtained from a general Charge-Coupled Device (CCD)/
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004476
Application 12/379,055
Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) camera" and "a depth
image that is obtained from a depth camera." Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. An apparatus for processing a three-dimensional (3D) image,
compnsmg:
a first storage unit to store depth image data associated
with an object as first data of a 3D data format;
a second storage unit to independently store a plurality of
color images associated with the object as color image data of a
2D image format, independent of the first data; and
a third storage unit to independently store a plurality of
depth images respectively obtained from plural different
viewpoints of the object, independent of the color image data;
a processing unit to generate a 3D image data by merging
a selected color image of the plurality of color images with the
first data, wherein the first storage unit is configured to merge
the plurality of depth images stored in the third storage unit and
subsequently store the merged plurality of depth images as the
first data into a single data structure such that the plural different
viewpoints are represented as a unified view.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 9-11, 13-15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Kanade et al. (US 6,084,979;
July 4, 2000) and Park et al. (US 2003/0214502 Al; Nov. 20, 2003) ("Park
'502"). Final Act. 3.
Claims 4, 7, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Kanade, Park '502, and Huang et al. (US
2008/0225044 Al; Sept. 18, 2008). Final Act. 7.
2
Appeal2015-004476
Application 12/379,055
Claims 5-7 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination ofKanade, Park '502, Huang, and Kaufman et
al. (US 2007 /0206008 Al; Sept. 6, 2007). Final Act. 11.
Claims 8 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Kanade, Park '502, Huang, Kaufman, and Park et
al. (US 7,450,132 B2; Nov. 11, 2008) ("Park '132"). Final Act. 15.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
combination ofKanade, Park '502, and Brennan (US 2007/0070082 Al;
Mar. 29, 2007). Final Act. 16.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Kanade and Park
'502 teaches or suggests "a second storage unit to independently store a
plurality of color images associated with the object as color image data of a
2D image format, independent of the first data" and "a third storage unit to
independently store a plurality of depth images respectively obtained from
plural different viewpoints of the object, independent of the color image
data," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-15, and 17-25
All of the independent claims (1, 9, 13, 22, and 23) recite
"independently storing" color images and depth images (or commensurate
variations thereof). The Examiner finds "Kanade fails to teach that the color
information is independently stored" but "[ t ]he Park reference cures this
deficiency." Ans. 18. Appellants, on the other hand, contend that "Kanade,
Park, and the Kanade/Park combination have color and depth data that occur
together and dependently." App. Br. 14.
3
Appeal2015-004476
Application 12/379,055
We agree with Appellants with respect to Park. According to the
Examiner, "Park, in figure 38, teaches a sampler 2110" and "[t]he depth
image data and the color image data are extracted from the sampler 2110 and
independently stored in the depth information generator 2140 and the color
information 2150 respectively." Ans. 18. No citation is given for the latter
finding. Moreover, we do not find where Park '502 says anything about the
generators storing depth image data and color image data; instead, Park '502
merely says "depth information generator 2140 generates" depth
information and "color information generator 2150 generates" color
information. Park '502 i-f 584 (emphasis added). Moreover, as Appellants
correctly point out (App. Br. 12), one embodiment of Park '502 expressly
includes both "depth" and "color" in the same PointTexture data structure
with the same variables specifying the width and height for both. Park '502
i-fi-1125-128. Thus, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
shown that Park '502 teaches or suggests "independently storing" color
images and depth images.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, 13, 22, and 23. Dependent claims 2, 4--8, 10, 11,
14, 15, and 17-21, 24, and 25 stand with their respective independent
claims.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
However, we also believe the Examiner erred in finding "Kanade fails
to teach that the color information is independently stored." Ans. 18.
Kanade teaches "[t]he output of each camera 2 is ... recorded on tape"; the
resulting "tapes 20 are digitized"; and "[t]he digitized information is then
4
Appeal2015-004476
Application 12/379,055
stored in any suitable storage media 24," as shown in Figure 4. Kanade
6:30-52. This is referred to as "image information," and Kanade also
teaches that"[ e Jach image is stored as intensity and/or color information
(hereinafter 'image information')." Id. at 6:58, 2:49--50 (emphasis added).
Thus, Kanade teaches storing color information in storage media 24.
Kanade also teaches that an "extraction technique, box 26 in FIG. 4, is
performed on the stored image information" which "is used to extract depth
information from the images." Kanade 6:56-62 (emphasis added).
Moreover, "the extraction technique ... may be performed on a machine
physically distinct from the storage device 24." Id. at 6:62----67 (emphasis
added). Thus, the depth information is extracted "on a machine physically
distinct from the storage device 24" which stores the color information. This
may suggest that the depth information is stored at least temporarily on a
physically distinct machine from the color information. The Examiner is
encouraged to consider these additional teachings of Kanade in assessing
whether any claims of the present application are obvious.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-15, and 17-25.
REVERSED
5